W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001


From: Denise Wood <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:17:07 +0930
Message-ID: <E1962E8F1DF0D411878300A0C9ACB0F90246374E@exstaff4.magill.unisa.edu.au>
To: "'David Poehlman'" <poehlman1@home.com>, John Morse <John.Morse@UK.Circle.com>, Denise Wood <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>, "'Access Systems'" <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Thanks for the feedback from the RNIB presentation John. I would hope that the
Adobe reps would feedback the information to the developers and that some
attention would be paid to the issues raised. I take David's point about the
release of V5 not reflecting all of the accessibility requirements identified
by the relevant stakeholders. However, being the naive and ever optimistic
individual that I am I will not pass judgement until we see what is
incorporated into fewer releases. Even if it is a slow education process, they
may eventually get there in successive approximations.

Having said that, I also acknowledge that this is not much comfort for those
who really need the accessibility features NOW - not some time in the future.


Dr Denise L Wood
Lecturer: Professional Development (online teaching and learning)
University of South Australia
CE Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000
Ph:    (61 8) 8302 2172 / (61 8) 8302 4472 (Tuesdays & Thursdays)
Fax:  (61 8) 8302 2363 / (61 8) 8302 4390
Mob: (0413 648 260)

Email:	Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au
WWW:	http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?Name=Denise.Wood

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@home.com]
Sent: Friday, 26 October 2001 8:19 PM
To: John Morse; 'Denise Wood'; 'Access Systems'
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: PDFs

----- They also took note before acrobat reader 5.0 was released and the
problems remain.
Original Message -----
From: "John Morse" <John.Morse@UK.Circle.com>
To: "'Denise Wood'" <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>; "'Access Systems'"
<accessys@smart.net>; "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:33 AM
Subject: RE: PDFs

i was at a presentaion that Adobe put on for the RNIB's web
campaign in London last week
some of these issues and others where pointed out by the audience
and the Adobe representatives seemed to take note

we shall see what happens...

John Morse
Technical Strategist
Euro RSCG Circle
100 Victoria Street
Bs1 6he
p : 0117 311 7770
m:07776 226520

-----Original Message-----
From: Denise Wood [mailto:Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au]
Sent: 24 October 2001 16:26
To: 'Access Systems'; David Poehlman
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: PDFs

Thanks everyone for pointing out the problems in the "accessible"
version of
Acrobat (V5).

I must confess that when I responded to Steven's email re the report
being in PDF format that I had not tried out a wide range of PDF
and certainly had only run this on a Pentium. I understand the issues
everyone has kindly pointed out about the very limited functionality
provided in Acrobat V5 and the assumption that everyone has access to
end systems.

Do we have a mechanism for feeding this kind of stuff back to Adobe (or
other companies when we discover weaknesses in their proposed solutions
accessibility)? Sure we can all email the companies individually - but
a concerted coordinated approach have more impact?


Dr Denise L Wood
Lecturer: Professional Development (online teaching and learning)
University of South Australia
CE Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000
Ph:    (61 8) 8302 2172 / (61 8) 8302 4472 (Tuesdays & Thursdays)
Fax:  (61 8) 8302 2363 / (61 8) 8302 4390
Mob: (0413 648 260)

Email:  Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Access Systems [ mailto:accessys@smart.net
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2001 5:00 AM
To: David Poehlman
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; Joe Clark
Subject: Re: PDFs

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, David Poehlman wrote:

> it actually has less functionality in at least one respect than its
> predecessor and that is that you cannot export documents from it into
> html or text.  AS for upgrading, many do not have a choice.  It is
> easier than ever before to produce accessible documents that are not
> proprietary.

I know the "Don't have a choice" issue for a number of reasons.

ALSO I haven't been able to get the text output to work via the Linux
but that could be me.
HOWEVER to get adobe to work in my firewalled enviorenment it has to be
downloaded, internally ported to another machine, then run through an
interperter (adobe) and it leaves me with no way to respond.

See we do a lot of work in third world countries.. sometimes getting a
2400baud connection is difficult.  so what ever comes in has to be a
clean/tidy/robust system... windoz does not meet any of those criteria.

I think a lot of us keep thinking everyone has a new Pentium processor
running the latest software....one of my contacts at an independent
center in Nicaragua has an old 286 as their newest machine..this is a
"WORLD" wide web and we are cutting off a lot of the world with all this
fancy stuff.

And when it comes to accessibility the third world needs it far more
desperately than we do in the "have" part of the world.  upgrade happens
when someone sends em a new (used) computer that actually works.  sure a
lot of software is free, but it isn't if you don't have the memory to
operate the free software...the new Windoz requires more memory to load
RAM as some of these folks have on thier hard drive.

this is setting a minimum standard for access FOR THE WORLD not just
America and the EU.  if it will work in PINE (e-mail) or LYNX
(browser) you can be pretty sure everyone can read it.

getting down off my soapbox


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@contenu.nu>
> To: <w3c-wai-ig@W3.org>; <poehlman1@home.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:52 PM
> Subject: PDFs
> >the question still remains because PDF is not considered to be
> >accessible for the majority of individuals who use voice output.
> They'll have to upgrade. Time marches on, you know.
> >the only accessibility it affords in its latest incarnation is that
> >which is derived from using windows 95 or higher with the latest
> >screen access tools.
> Actually, Acrobat 5 or later used with any screen reader that can
> manipulate Acrobat 5 will do an OK job muddling through even old
> PDFs. Tagged PDFs, which are still very difficult to make, will read
> out best of all, but a linear document like the Nielsen Norman report
> will probably read adequately well. Tables and illustrations will
> remain a problem, but the prose will be mostly accessible. None of
> this was ever true with Acrobat 4 and earlier; version 5 adds
> significant new logic to make educated guesses even with untagged
> PDFs.
> --
>          Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org |
> < http://joeclark.org/access/ <http://joeclark.org/access/> >
>          Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques ||
>            "I do not pretend to understand the mind of Joe Clark"
>            -- Larry Goldberg

   /"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign       accessBob                       .-.
   \ /   NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail   accessys@smartnospam.net        /v\
    X    NO MSWord docs in e-mail    Access Systems, engineers      //
   / \   NO attachments in e-mail    equal access is a civil right /(
_ )\
THIS message and any attachements are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privleged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.

1.This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above
named only and may be confidential.  Any opinions expressed
in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily
the company. If they have come to you in error please notify
the sender immediately, and delete this email from your
system without copying, disseminating or placing any reliance
upon its contents.
2.Please note that this e-mail has been created in the
knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure
communications medium.  We advise that you understand and
observe this lack of security when e-mailing us.
3.Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in
keeping with good computing practice the recipient should
ensure they are actually virus free.
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 09:47:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC